West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-02-25
COMMENT.

papers that were purchased.
COMMENT.
Nobody expects Mr.. Lucas to
name the persons who handled the
money. In the nature of the case,
it is impossible to produce direct
evidence without a legal inyestiga-
ton. The greatest secrecy was pre-
served and every effort made to
evade detection. We can testify
that, during the campaign, certain
of Mr.. Camden's most active sup
porters in this county, who are with
out means of their own, were liber-
ally supplied with money. We are
informed that such was the case
elsewhere. We have conversed with
intelligent and we'll informed men
from nearly every part of the State;
our opinion is based upon what they
tel! us, and we give. it as our DELHI
crate judgment that Mr.. Camden, if
made q witness, would testify that
his canvass for Senator cost, at the
lowest estimate, $4,000. We do
know that such is the opinion of at
least twenty of the most intelligent
and best informed citizens of this
State. OF course very few specific
facts became public. OF course the
few specific facts which are known
became public by mere accident and
in spite of the efforts to preserve Sc
crecy. 1t has been disclosed, for
example, that Mr.. Camden sent
5000 to Delegate Kidd, of Gilmer.
Mr.. Kidd says that it was to aid in
the defeat of Maxwell and to elect
BrannOn; he further states that the
money was probably sent to him
under a misapprehension that he
was chairman of the executive COM
mittee But the average citizen is
apt to think that Mr.. Camden kept
himself informed respecting the
committees and that this money
would not have been sent to Mr..
Kidd had he not been a candidate
for the Legislature, or If his news
paper opposed Mr.. Camden's re-
election. The Kidd case is not an
isolated instance. The point is
whether our institutions can be pre-
served if the ballot box is controlled
by money instead of by appeals to
the judgment and patriotism Of vo-
tiers? Are men who purchase seats
in the Senate likely to legislate in
the public interest or in the interest
of some private, money making en-
terprise hostile to the common veal?
Respecting the newspapers,~-is
any one so simple minded as to sup
pose that the press was unrewarded
for its advocacy of Mr.. Camden?
There are some eighty Democratic
papers in this State; all of them,
with the exception of only four or
five, exhausted ingenuity to create
the appearance of popular judg-
ment in his favor. The contest is
over and we would say nothing un-
pleasant that is not necessary to
awake the people to impending dan
ger. But we have q new school of
politicians who expect to succeed by
using the newspapers to mislead
opinion. Here lies the danger. Pos
sibly there are editors so ignorant,
so unacquainted with passing events
and with so little judgment of their
own as to be entrapped by what they
read in their exchanges, but the
more intelligent citizens in the diff
ferent counties will decide for them
selves whether Mr.. Camden was adj
vocated by their local papers only
because the editor was prompted by
an enlightened conviction that he
was the best man for the place or
whether such editor was actuated by
belief his advocacy would be prof
liable. We have heard the question
frequently discussed and meet with
no one who does not Delteve that
the Charleston Tribune was paid to
support Mr.. Camden; we have met
with no one who does not believe
that the Wheeling Register is in his
pay. Our limited space precludes
further comment. We firmly believe
that every intelligent citizen is con-
WINGED that money was corruptly
used and that the newspapers were
hired. The weakness of our party
is, that the masses feel they cannot
rely on the politicians for fair and